At this point, we are just picking nits about Palffy and Dillon. Dillon is the better goal scorer, but Palffy the better overall offensive peak in the regular season... At least before getting into the tricky business of how to account for Dillon being stuck behind Bill Cook. Dillon has more intangibles, but it's not like he's some elite intangibles guy himself.

As for the Doan comment, why would yountake Mats Naslund and Kirk Muller over him "easily" when they likely provide similar offense and Doan is praised at least as much for his all round game?

Yes, I agree that Dillon and Palffy's overall offense in the regular season is close. However, Dillon has by far more intangible than Palffy. Having a top-40 RW of All-Time with great defensive skills who probably won't miss a single shift on my team for the duration of the season is quite useful.

Did I use the word ''easily''? I think I used the word ''comfortably'' which mean that the decision on my part wouldn't be difficult. There's no question for Tikkanen, and I think Muller was a little bit better offensively while I would get his overall intangible over Doan. As for Naslund, I think he's more suited to a scoring role in the ATD. Refresh my memory: is Doan and Naslund offense really that close? If so I would need to rethink my view. Feel free to finally link me to that Doan post

Isnt it all specualtion as to the penalty killing abilities of pre-expansion players? For what it's worth, Pelletier called MacKell as "special teams specialist."

I already said that I was buying Mackell as a PK player. However, I'm taking a stance into selling him as an elite penalty killer in the ATD, which he is clearly not, unless you find some evidence. As of now, I would have Lewis, H.Richard and even Handzus over him.

I don't consider Bill Cook a generational goalscorer : however, I do consider him one of the three best player in the game (when Dillon played, obviously), one of the two best forward (the other being Morenz) and the best RW.

Frank Boucher was a better player than Bill Cook, at least in their time in New York (though Cook's western league scoring credentials are more impressive). They scored the exact same number of points over the course of their peaks together (starting in 1926-27 and ending in 1934-35 - each scored 249 points) and this in an era when scoring favored the goalscorer. Boucher led the Rangers in scoring five times, Cook four times. Taking the assists issue into account, Boucher was pretty clearly the better offensive player overall (by just how much is debatable), and was a defensive dynamo, while nothing is known about Cook's defense. Frank Boucher was also the most dominant playoff scorer in the NHL over the course of his career.

The canon on the Bread Line seems to have been simply wrong, likely because Cook has more "spectacular" on paper scoring credentials (he led the league in goals and points a couple of times while Boucher peaked at 2nd in points - and to modern eyes an "assists title", of which Boucher had three, is worth less than a goals title, even though at that time assists were harder to come by, and therefore more valuable) and because he was the team captain. Even the New York Times hockey columnist of the day (John Kieran) considered Boucher to be the Rangers' MVP.

Ultimately, I think Frank Boucher is very similar to Bryan Trottier. Here is a comparison of Boucher vs Trottier as scorers using my preferred shorthand:

Really quite similar scoring credentials, overall (Boucher's are maybe a tick better), and this of course underrates Boucher somewhat because the era he played in was unkind to playmakers. Before anyone claims that Trottier is underrated because of Gretzky - Bryan's two best seasons in the above came in 1977-78 and 1978-79, before Wayne Gretzky came to the NHL (and before Trottier started playing lockdown defense, as well - Arbour had to coach Trottier and Potvin into being great defensive players, they were not shutdown players during their offensive primes in the late 70's), and at any rate the Vs2 distortions because of Gretzky and Lemieux don't start popping up until 1987-88, well past Trottier's prime. Both were consistently elite (though not quite ATD elite) scoring centers who centered all-time great RW goalscorers and hall of fame "glue guy" left wings. Defensively, Boucher and Trottier are also quite similar, both being dominant 2-way players and the primary defensive conscience for all-time great scoring lines. Both were outstanding postseason players, as well - Trottier collecting a Conn-Smythe in 1980 and Boucher almost singlehandedly carrying the Rangers to their first Cup in 1928.

The information I posted on Boucher's defensive game can be found here and here. It is very strong - I believe sufficient to place Boucher in the second tier of all-time great two-way centers alongside Trottier and Schmidt (below Clarke and Nighbor).

If we look only at offensive production, Ziggy definitely falls into the top-40 RWs of all time. This somewhat overrates him at even strength and he brings questionable intangibles (non-physical and brittle), but Ziggy at his best is definitely among the best offensive wingers on ATD 2nd lines. Strangely, Palffy was quite biased towards goal-scoring at even strength (he was a primary playmaker on the powerplay), which I'm not sure is ideal on a line with Starshinov, but offensively he's definitely high-end in his role.

I wish we had more information on Dillon's intangibles and how his line was really used. The Dillon line is called a "checking line" (though it was really the team's second line), though it is not clear how they were actually used. Given the realities of hockey at the time (icetime split between two rather than four lines), it is highly unlikely that the Dillon line was used like a modern checking unit. To do so would have cut too much into the Bread Line's icetime, especially on visiting ice. It is also the case that the Bread Line, between Frank Boucher and Bun Cook, was quite strong defensively, itself - likely better than New York's second line in this regard.

It is of course possible to have a strong two-way first line and still have a strong checkingline (think of the Islanders or Detroit with Yzerman/Fedorov), but it seems unlikely that New York's second line was really drawing all of the tough defensive assignments. Dillon no doubt got reduced icetime relative to the stars of the game for much of his career, but the defensive role of the line is unclear, and at any rate the information on Dillon's defense is pretty thin at this point, as far as I know.

If we look only at offensive production, Ziggy definitely falls into the top-40 RWs of all time. This somewhat overrates him at even strength and he brings questionable intangibles (non-physical and brittle), but Ziggy at his best is definitely among the best offensive wingers on ATD 2nd lines. Strangely, Palffy was quite biased towards goal-scoring at even strength (he was a primary playmaker on the powerplay), which I'm not sure is ideal on a line with Starshinov, but offensively he's definitely high-end in his role.

I wish we had more information on Dillon's intangibles and how his line was really used. The Dillon line is called a "checking line" (though it was really the team's second line), though it is not clear how they were actually used. Given the realities of hockey at the time (icetime split between two rather than four lines), it is highly unlikely that the Dillon line was used like a modern checking unit. To do so would have cut too much into the Bread Line's icetime, especially on visiting ice. It is also the case that the Bread Line, between Frank Boucher and Bun Cook, was quite strong defensively, itself - likely better than New York's second line in this regard.

It is of course possible to have a strong two-way first line and still have a strong checkingline (think of the Islanders or Detroit with Yzerman/Fedorov), but it seems unlikely that New York's second line was really drawing all of the tough defensive assignments. Dillon no doubt got reduced icetime relative to the stars of the game for much of his career, but the defensive role of the line is unclear, and at any rate the information on Dillon's defense is pretty thin at this point, as far as I know.

You're making some good point in there, but I will disagree to a certain extent on some of them. First of all, I agree that we have limited information on how the second line of Murray Murdoch - Butch Keeling -Cecil Dillon really work behind the bread line. However, I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that Bun Cook and Frank Boucher were better defensively than Murray Murdoch and Cecil Dillon. Perhaps it's just my lack of knowledge of Cook and Boucher, but it was pretty clear in my mind that of all three, Murdoch was the best defensive player. I'm unsure if you read my Dillon's biography, but I think it paint a good picture of him, at least far better than we ever had on him. The thing I can say about him defensively is that he was indeed use on the PK and he was one of the best back-checker of his day. Just like anytime we read on oldtimers, we never really read about how a forward was good in the defensive zone, but more on how they were as backchecker, how they quickly come back in the zone to help their defenceman. Dillon was great at that. My lack of knowledge on Cook and Boucher's defensive zone disable me to make a correct assumption if the defensive abilities of Dillon were better or worst than the one of Cook/Boucher, but I'm sure you will enlighten me shortly

One last quick point. My 'feel' of reading the newspaper of the day was that the Murdoch - Dillon duo was more oriented toward defensive in the first part of the 1930's, and as the 1930's move along and the fame bread line were getting older, they got more offensive responsibility.

My lack of knowledge on Cook and Boucher's defensive zone disable me to make a correct assumption if the defensive abilities of Dillon were better or worst than the one of Cook/Boucher, but I'm sure you will enlighten me shortly

I'm guessing you haven't had time to read the Dirt thread. For someone as genuinely interested in hockey history as yourself, it might be worth the effort. There is a lot of good information in there, most of it not from me. My posts in the that thread on Frank Boucher's checking ability are linked three posts above (at the bottom of my comments on Boucher). You have to go back a bit further to get the background information I posted on hook-checking, in general.

Contemporary reports (a number of which I have posted in that thread) depict Boucher as one of the premier defensive players of his era. Frank (along with Hooley Smith, Pit Lepine and maybe Aurel Joliat) was one of the last of the great hook-checkers (a skill both Smith and Boucher almost certainly learned directly from Frank Nighbor in Ottawa), and used this skill to devastating effect. The hook check was the defensive technique that Jack Walker invented and Frank Nighbor perfected, in which a forward (generally in the neutral zone) got low to the ice (often on one knee) and swept his stick out in a wide arc, which allowed him not only to steal the puck from the puck-carrier, but also to break up passes intended for linemates. It was considered by many to be bad for the sport due to its devastating effectiveness and the way it tended to slow up play and clog the neutral zone.

Hook-checking was quite different from back-checking, and those who were able to master the technique were terrrors to opposing teams in open ice due to the great area of ice surface the hook check could cover. I rate Frank Boucher above Murdoch and any of the other Rangers defensively because contemporary reports describe his defense in truly superlative terms, and because we know that he was master of a technique which was generally regarded as the dominant defensive tactic (among forwards - although it may be that Moose Johnson was also primarily a hook-checker) of the time.

Eagle, I just read your bio on Dillon. It looks like he was specifically regarded as one of the greatest penalty-killers in the game during his prime, which is interesting and impressive information. One comment: I really wish you would link the articles you are quoting. There is really no reason not to do so, and they allow the reader to inspect the background context of a quote if he so chooses. One of the quotes in your bio on Dillon - the business about him being rated "one of the greatest back-checkers ever" - fairly begs for closer inspection, but as you have provided no link to the article, I have to hold it in some suspicion.

You are an excellent hockey historian, Eagle - too good not to provide your bibliographical references when possible (I realize that some articles are pay articles or that we occasionally lose links). Ideally, these bios should be documents worthy of meaningful historical reference, and that means sharing our primary sources. Great work on Dillon, by the way, and in general with your bios.

I do not have a lot of time today to inspect your claim on Boucher, but I will try to read it in the next week or so. I try to read all the new posts related to the ATD on a daily basis, but I obviously miss a bunch of them, as you guy just post to much for me! It looked from what you say that Boucher was a defensive stalwart. Given the fact that he was a prominant offensive player and perhaps a Top-5 playmaker of All-Time, there's definitely a claim to move Frank Boucher in the Top-30, or at the very least, close to that range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturminator

Eagle, I just read your bio on Dillon. It looks like he was specifically regarded as one of the greatest penalty-killers in the game during his prime, which is interesting and impressive information. One comment: I really wish you would link the articles you are quoting. There is really no reason not to do so, and they allow the reader to inspect the background context of a quote if he so chooses. One of the quotes in your bio on Dillon - the business about him being rated "one of the greatest back-checkers ever" - fairly begs for closer inspection, but as you have provided no link to the article, I have to hold it in some suspicion.

You are an excellent hockey historian, Eagle - too good not to provide your bibliographical references when possible (I realize that some articles are pay articles or that we occasionally lose links). Ideally, these bios should be documents worthy of meaningful historical reference, and that means sharing our primary sources. Great work on Dillon, by the way, and in general with your bios.

Than You for the nice comments

True, I could provide a direct link to every of my article, perhaps something I will do next time around. However, all my sources, without exception, are duly noted, and every articles written down comes with a date, journal name and article name, which should make the research of the noted article fairly easy if you want to do so. A simple link could do the trick though. As I said, next draft

True, I could provide a direct link to every of my article, perhaps something I will do next time around. However, all my sources, without exception, are duly noted, and every articles written down comes with a date, journal name and article name, which should make the research of the noted article fairly easy if you want to do so. A simple link could do the trick though. As I said, next draft

Actually, the source for the specific quote that I find problematic is not listed in your bio. Your bio entry follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXX; Cowley Climbing High in Scoring (01/25/1938)

Cecil Dillon, speedy, sleek-haired wingman of the New York Rangers, who has been rated one of the National Hockey League's best back-checkers ever since his debut in 1930, is coming to the front as a contender for the scoring title.

I did the search myself and found a Christian Science Monitor pay document with exactly that quote in the abstract here. As you did not, in fact, list your source on this occasion, I can only assume that you did not buy the document, but simply listed the quote provided in the abstract. I should not have to tell you what a dim view I have of this kind of historical work. This illuminates exactly the problem of missing context, and exactly why we must get in the habit of posting our sources (or at least giving solid textual context - I generally post the entire text of an article when I can't link it - like for the New York Times) whenever possible.

Posting a text blurb coughed up by a search engine as a legitimate historical document is not acceptable research methodology. It very well may be that the article contains glowing descriptions of Cecil Dillon's backchecking, but we don't know that yet.

Actually, the source for the specific quote that I find problematic is not listed in your bio. Your bio entry follows:

I did the search myself and found a Christian Science Monitor pay document with exactly that quote in the abstract here. As you did not, in fact, list your source on this occasion, I can only assume that you did not buy the document, but simply listed the quote provided in the abstract. I should not have to tell you what a dim view I have of this kind of historical work. This illuminates exactly the problem of missing context, and exactly why we must get in the habit of posting our sources (or at least giving solid textual context - I generally post the entire text of an article when I can't link it - like for the New York Times) whenever possible.

Posting a text blurb coughed up by a search engine as a legitimate historical document is not acceptable research methodology. It very well may be that the article contains glowing descriptions of Cecil Dillon's backchecking, but we don't know that yet.

I remember that article now. Yes, it was an article where I had to pay to view, which I didn't, and honestly never do. I understand your scepticism towards those kind of documents, but without spending money, that's the best I could do. That's why I do not consider myself, nor like being called an 'hockey historian', because I am not. I am a hockey history buff, even a fanatic, but I never spent time in school studying methodology and the proper way to present an historical paper. I'm using my head and that's it. I still think my biography are good historical sources, but they are far from perfect. If anyone would like to go even further into a player accomplishment/life than my biography do, those bios are great start, but shouldn't count as the supreme and holygrail truth information available. And never this was my pretencion.

Im not all thjat concerned with having a set shut down line play 22+ minutes a night, the shut down assignment will go to Robinson-Stanley who could be with any of my 4 forward lines at any point of the game.

THAT is the sort of all-time great 4th line that makes the whole ATD most worthwhile. We ain't assembling all-star game rosters, we're assembling all-time great TEAMS and such a back line are the epitome of Bottom-6 role players.

But then, just look at how good are the 4th liners qua bottom 6ers! Here is the Jim Robson division team's back lines:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barons

Ryan Walter - Dennis Maruk - Duane Sutter

A pivot who can pass well, cause turnovers and score on transition, with grinder wingers who can put the biscuit in the basket sometimes and always bring their 'A' game in terms of effort!

Here is the new list, as of the tony d review of the Swamp Devils...I took the liberty of adding teams with 0 reviews that have posted their completed rosters in the thread. I'll keep the list here updated.

Note: I called the smaller reviews vancityloungo did "0.25" reviews, the monster_bertruzzi reviews as "0.5" reviews and most of the reviews nik jr did that seems just a bit too short for full "0.75" reviews. I am not going to try to defend these approximations, do if anone has a complaint or a better idea on evaluating these reviews, feel free to suggest it.

If I missed something, please do say so.
Good start, but still lots to do.

Not my fav back line by any stretch, but the place to try out an unproved German with a Lady Byng and a bona fide 4th line legend agitator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Thomas Vanek - Gary Unger - Bill Ezinicki

Two offensive stars and a bodychecker extrordinaire. Okay, since this is how some fourth lines roll, but really not a line with a set role other than secondary scoring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fighting Saints

Ab McDonald - Jaroslav Holik - Lorne Carr

A slow tough center with a checker and a clutch scorer is more hodge podge than planned, but still three legitimate back liners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankers

Alexei Guryshev-Dick Irvin -Mike Keane

A slow crash-the-net-centre Espositio type played out of position, an early era scoring great, and a defensive minded grinder makes for decent secondary scoring and some grit. Functional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens

Geoff Courtnall - Billy Reay - Alex Kovalev

A MLD 2nd line if I ever saw one! None of these are prototypical Bottom-6 all-time great starters, but Reay could be. Kovalev is clearly an all-time great with his stickhandling skills but he's clearly bench material imo, to be subbed on a Top-6 line for injuries and suspensions, or not played at all. Courtnall is a loose cannon who isn't elite enough in anything to be worth starting. This is the first back line I pan.

Other 4th lines I applaud qua Bottom-6 liners on an all-time great team:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiators

Brian Rolston - Bob Carpenter - Paul MacLean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirates

Jack Marks - Brian Skrudland - Pat Flatley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacks

Reggie Fleming - John Madden - Ron Sutter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jokerit

Gaetan Duchesne - Doug Jarvis - Barney Stanley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swamp Devils

Fleming MacKell - Michal Handzus - Todd Bertuzzi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nighthawks

Kelly Miller - Mike Fisher - Martin Lapointe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petes

Butch Keeling - Clarence McKerrow - Jack Findlay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantoms

Ray Whitney - Cliff Ronning - Tomas Sandstrom

WTFISTHAT? You couldn't wait for the MLD, could you? I gotta call a spade a spade and say this ain't an all-time great draft line. They ain't good enough for Top-6 duty and they ain't got the jam for Bottom-6 role on an all-time great team.

First Line: Good first line. Morenz is obviously a stud and would be a great anchor to any first line. Shutt is also a definite first line talent who will work fine next to Morenz as a goal scorer. Briere is obviously a weak link here, as to be honest I don't even think he's a top 6 talent at RW, but these two will make him look passable on the line I think. Plus Briere has a great playoff record.

Second Line: One of my favorite in the draft. Lindros is defintiely one of the top second line centers in this draft, and plus you put him with an old running mate in Leclair. That liine is just going to punish people physically. Wharram gives this line a little bit of speed and will work hard for these two. A few people have said he's out of place in the top 6, but I think he'll be okay there next to these two.

Third line: Solid third line. Again I like the LW-C combo of Tonelli and Tkazchuc. Schmautz is tenacious and feisty so he should work next to those two.

Fourth Line: Not much of a fan of the 4th line. I think Holmstrom is absolutely useless here ES. Draper brings absolutely zero offense in this thing, but he'll be good defensively. Deadmarsh is a short career guy (has only 6 seasons of over 60 games) that really hasn't done enough to warrant being selected in this in my view.

Spares: I like Yashin he was actually one of my first favorite players when I was younger, and he'll be fine to be put in a spot to produce. I think Parise already has a better resume than Deadmarsh does (5 full seasons over 80 games, 4 30 goal years, better defensively). I wish you would have drafted a RW spare becuase I think you'll need it eventually as Briere isn't necessarily the picture of health.

First defensive pairing: Horton is a good #1 in this thing obviously and is a good defensive guy to pair with Hollett's offensive game. Hollett is a fine #3 here I think. Should be fine with this pairing.

Second Pairing: Goodfellow is a good #2 as a Hart Trophy winning DMan. I'm not sure Magnuson is a good #4 in this though. He fits fine with Magnuson, but I'm not sure he's good enough for that responsibility. Also, he tended to spend a lot of time in the penalty box.

Third Pairing: When both were in their primes, both Svehla and Hammer were offensive D guys. Both were also guys who tended to get out of position by going for hits. I'd be somewhat concerned defensively about this unit.

Spare: Visnovsky defintiely has a place in this, but I think that you probably should have drafted a defensive guy.

Goaltending: Chabot is definitely a starter, albeit a lower end one. Khabibulin is a fine backup. It won't be a problem for you, but it won't be a strength either.

COaching: Imlach is in my opinion a top 10 coach. Obviously pushes his players hard, but I don't think you have any issues with that on your team. MAYBE Lindros, but that's only a maybe. So I think you'll be okay there. VIgnault is an okay assistant who is more friendly towards players if I remember correctly.

Special Teams: Phenomenal first unit PP that will be great in this, probably a below average second unit. You will have a good PK unit as well.

Overall: Great offense. You're going to score goals in bunches with your great puck moving DMen and great top two line duos. I'm concerned about your defense and goaltending. You're going to need to out gun other teams offensively, which is totally possible. Obviously in a draft this big every team is going to have weaknesses so I think you put together a solid team. Definitely a great top 3 lines, solid first two pairings will carry you.

First line: Lafleur is one of the three best RWs in the draft, so he's a good anchor anywhere. Crosby is a legitimate first line center I think and Kovalchuk's goal scoring ability will certainly be aided by both Lafleur and Crosby's playmaking ability. Good first line.

Second Line: Colville is a solid second line center with four top 10's in scoring and 3 all-star teams. Naslund is fine as a second liner as well. I'm going to need to be convinced on Khomutov. Outside of the 1990-1992 stretch he had in International competition I'm pretty unimpressed by him.

Third line: Kind of an offensive third line. Full of guys who I think are only average defensively by ATD standards. Ridley is a hard worker, Vickers is a tough guy, and Linden's a hard worker with some intangibles, so this line should function well in providing energy and a boost of offense.

Fourth Line: Smyl's a solid hard nosed 4th liner, Kisio's another guy wtih a lot of speed who will be fine on a 4th line, and Kozlov should inject some more offense into this group.

Overall offensive comment: You don't really have a line that can go up against another team's top line which could create some problems.

Spares: Lorne Henning's an effective PK guy, that's pretty much it.

First pairing: Leetch is a solid offensive based #1. I'm just never going to buy Adam Foote on a first pairing. That's goign to be an adventure against top ATD lines.

Second pairing: Karel Gut and Yushkevich would be a solid bottom pairing. As a second pairing, they're out of place. The two also fit fine together.

Third pairing: Ohlund is fine as a third pairing guy, as is Marty Burke. They'll fit fine together.

Spares: Don't know nearly enough about Holden to make an adequate comment on him, Doug Young looks like a solid spare, but again I don't know enough about him.

Goaltending: Hainsworth is an average starting goalie in this, Luongo is probably one of the better backups I think. Good work here by this team.

Coaching: Day will be a fine coach for this team, probably in the top 10 coaches ever.

Overall comment: VanI did a great job wtih this team for what it was. The defense is an absolute mess but considering what he had to start with, you can't really blame him at all. The forward group looks like actually a real forward group in this thing too, again which VanI did a great job. The coaching will help bring the most out of this team for VanI, but they'll probably struggle due to the defense.

Again though, enough cannot be said to VanI for making this team at least capable of competing.

First Line: Joe Malone is one of the best goal scorers ever, so he's a great starter. However, I'm not sure that you guys have put him in the best position to succeed here with two guys who aren't great playmakers. These three players I love by themselves, but together thye just don't look like a match to me.

Second line: Gilmour is a great start as a two-way center to any second line. I honestly have no idea what Kilrea is doing on that second line. One good seasons doesn't make him much of a second liner in this thing in my view. Tocchet is a perfect fit next to Gilmour to make this a good two-way line. He'll add some toughness to that line with some goal scoring ability.

Third line: BUtch Goring is one of the top 3rd liners in this draft, so your strength down the middle continues. McVeigh's two-way play certainly fits well here. Dineen certainly brings some more offense to that line along with being tough and tenacious.

Fourth Line: I think you should switch Whitney up to the second line over Kilrea. Whitney will provide a solid play making presence on that line. Ronning is okay I guess. Sandstrom is certainly another decent offensive player for an offensively minded 4th line.

SPares: Being a Pittsburgh fan I obviously Kehoe. Acton is a meh spare.

First pairing: Blake and Pulford is probably on the lower end of top pairings, but it's not a bad pairing either. They fit well together as well.

Second pairing: St Laurent and Svedberg certainly compliment each other well. Svedberg's creativtiy and puck moving ability wil compliment St Laurent's stay at home style perfectly. I can see you running into the same problem I am as an owner of Sologubov among other GMs saying that they are concerned about the strength of play, but I think Svedberg is fine on a second pairing.

Third Pairing: Phillips is a good stay at home DMan, Hatcher a good defensive Dman. Phillips should be able to cover for Hatcher's lack of great defensive skill. SOlid classic offense-defense combo.

Spares: Manson's a good spare who can provide toughness and a little offense, Dick Redmond again will provide some offense form the back end.

Goalies: Don't need to say much about it I don't think. Sawchuk is a top 5 guy, Kiprusoff a good backup.

Coaching: QUinn will work well wtih this team. Probably a little bit above average coaching.

Special teams: Looks like two pretty even PP units. I have no idea what ROnning's prowess is for him to be on the top unit there, so I might need a little convincing there. Also, I would probably switch Stevens and Tocchet because Stevens is great in front of the net. PK is good.

Overall: I like this team on an individual basis. There are some minor line adjustments I think you need to make, but the talent is certainly there for you. Some definite strengths in net and goal scoring ability. You don't have the top end DMen, but I don't think your defense will be a weakness either. Good job on this team!

First Line: Good first line. Morenz is obviously a stud and would be a great anchor to any first line. Shutt is also a definite first line talent who will work fine next to Morenz as a goal scorer. Briere is obviously a weak link here, as to be honest I don't even think he's a top 6 talent at RW, but these two will make him look passable on the line I think. Plus Briere has a great playoff record.

Second Line: One of my favorite in the draft. Lindros is defintiely one of the top second line centers in this draft, and plus you put him with an old running mate in Leclair. That liine is just going to punish people physically. Wharram gives this line a little bit of speed and will work hard for these two. A few people have said he's out of place in the top 6, but I think he'll be okay there next to these two.

Third line: Solid third line. Again I like the LW-C combo of Tonelli and Tkazchuc. Schmautz is tenacious and feisty so he should work next to those two.

Fourth Line: Not much of a fan of the 4th line. I think Holmstrom is absolutely useless here ES. Draper brings absolutely zero offense in this thing, but he'll be good defensively. Deadmarsh is a short career guy (has only 6 seasons of over 60 games) that really hasn't done enough to warrant being selected in this in my view.

Spares: I like Yashin he was actually one of my first favorite players when I was younger, and he'll be fine to be put in a spot to produce. I think Parise already has a better resume than Deadmarsh does (5 full seasons over 80 games, 4 30 goal years, better defensively). I wish you would have drafted a RW spare becuase I think you'll need it eventually as Briere isn't necessarily the picture of health.

First defensive pairing: Horton is a good #1 in this thing obviously and is a good defensive guy to pair with Hollett's offensive game. Hollett is a fine #3 here I think. Should be fine with this pairing.

Second Pairing: Goodfellow is a good #2 as a Hart Trophy winning DMan. I'm not sure Magnuson is a good #4 in this though. He fits fine with Magnuson, but I'm not sure he's good enough for that responsibility. Also, he tended to spend a lot of time in the penalty box.

Third Pairing: When both were in their primes, both Svehla and Hammer were offensive D guys. Both were also guys who tended to get out of position by going for hits. I'd be somewhat concerned defensively about this unit.

Spare: Visnovsky defintiely has a place in this, but I think that you probably should have drafted a defensive guy.

Goaltending: Chabot is definitely a starter, albeit a lower end one. Khabibulin is a fine backup. It won't be a problem for you, but it won't be a strength either.

COaching: Imlach is in my opinion a top 10 coach. Obviously pushes his players hard, but I don't think you have any issues with that on your team. MAYBE Lindros, but that's only a maybe. So I think you'll be okay there. VIgnault is an okay assistant who is more friendly towards players if I remember correctly.

Special Teams: Phenomenal first unit PP that will be great in this, probably a below average second unit. You will have a good PK unit as well.

Overall: Great offense. You're going to score goals in bunches with your great puck moving DMen and great top two line duos. I'm concerned about your defense and goaltending. You're going to need to out gun other teams offensively, which is totally possible. Obviously in a draft this big every team is going to have weaknesses so I think you put together a solid team. Definitely a great top 3 lines, solid first two pairings will carry you.

Nice review, thank you sir.

I made the switch of Parise on the 4th line over Holmstrom. You're right, Holmstrom is useless at ES in this, but as a spare who can get spot duty on the PP he has a role.

I made the switch of Parise on the 4th line over Holmstrom. You're right, Holmstrom is useless at ES in this, but as a spare who can get spot duty on the PP he has a role.

Holmstrom has a role on the PP here for sure. But Parise defintiely fits better wtih Draper as a better defensive player. That line looks a lot better now I think and can be used in most defensive situations.

EDIT: Looking further into Parise, he has a shockingly good resume for a guy in the NHL for five years. A Second Team All Star, All Olympic Team 2010. I enever would have expected that much from him already.

Thanks VI I really appreciate the review and pretty much agree with everything said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturminator

Eh...league leaders in the 3-league era credited with an 80?! So basically you're saying that everyone sucked offensively (80 is a quite mediocre score for a peak offensive season among ATD scoringline forwards) over a five year stretch. Think about your metric for a moment...it's quite bad, and does considerable violence to the greatest players of the era.

It's not actually that hard to pick out the best scorers for a particular season if you just look at the results.

1921-22: something of a "2 outliers" situation with Broadbent comfortably at #1 in the NHL and Keats way out ahead in the WCHL. The PCHA was tightly packed at the top and the NHL was fairly regular at the top after Broadbent. The WCHL had no one of real interest after Keats. I think Keats likely deserves a score of 100+ for this season, Broadbent a 100 (I think he was the year's second best scorer), and the rest falling off from there. I'd give Jack Adams around a 92-93 as the best PCHA scorer, and then a gradual fall off from there with Denneny, Dye and Cameron in the NHL and MacKay, Fredrickson, Foyston and Morris in the PCHA all falling somewhere in the 90-80 range. It's not exact work, but I think it's fairly accurate given what was going on in hockey at the time. At any rate...a hundred times better than assigning Keats and Broadbent an 80 and going down from there.

1922-23: Fredrickson is very far ahead in the PCHA and deserves a score of 100+ for this season. Babe Dye is first in the NHL by a decent margin and deserves a score of 100. After that, there is a fairly regular fall off in the NHL. The PCHA players are far behind Fredrickson and the WCHL in general looks pretty weak (Art Gagne is the leading scorer), so they're harder to fit into a coherent analysis.

1923-24: Bill Cook is well out ahead in the WCHL and deserves a 100+ score for this season. After him, all three leagues probably fit in fairly evenly (the WCHL was a strong league by this point) with an order of descent probably looking something like this: Denneny, Art Duncan, Georges Bouches, Harry Oliver, Frank Fredrickson, Billy Boucher / Billy Burch, Mickey Mackay, George Hay, etc. So Denneny gets a 100 and the downslope from #2 looks fairly regular in this season, so the NHL guys can probably be safely compared straight up to Denneny. Duncan is probably around a 95 in the PCHA and the rest of their scorers can be compared to him. In the WCHL only Oliver was very close to Cook (the rest of the field were 30% or so behind Cook), so comparison here is harder.

It is far from impossible to get some sense of where hockey's best scorers fell in terms of value in these seasons. We should try not to approach them with clumsy and over-general metrics.

You are most likely correct. I've been meaning to do something about this little gap - the biggest step towards that would be to put the percentage scores into a spreadsheet instead of just doing quick calculations every time I want to compare some players, and I did that for the NHL last night. Once I determine what the appropriate benchmark numbers should be (and they very well could be the exact ones you've said), then I can just plug those in and use them perpetually.

Still not sure I want to credit anyone with over 100 for pre-merger years, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

Seriously though, I find websites like that great resources for HOW HE PLAYED but not HOW GOOD HE WAS."

Coaching - Not the most familiar with Pitnar I must admit, but Robinson is a great choice as an assistant (really if it was the other way around and Pitnar was the assistant, would you lose a step?).

Line 1 - Obviously a terrifying 1st line, one of the strongest in the entire league. I like how you got the Richard's defensive mindset with Tommy Phillips, they should be free to work some magic.

Line 2 - Just as impressive as your 1st line is, I think your second line is a weak spot. Doan at left wing? He's out of place in this as a top 6'er for starters - let alone playing in a foreign position. Palffy is a juggernaut offensively at times but where is the defensive conscience between him and Clint Smith? I think this line gets you in trouble at times.

Line 3 - This line is clearly better than your 2nd line IMO so I don't know what you're going for here, lol. Just like EB said I think, Starshinov and Mayorov already have proven chemistry together? This line would seriously destroy some of the third pairing defenceman in our division.

Line 4 - Big fan of Bertuzzi, obviously. But his temper and bad habit of taking dumb penalties could cost your team at times. I like the big body presence of this line with Handzus as well. Not familiar enough with the Mackell TBH.

Defence - Quackenbush is a respectable #1 but nowhere near elite. I like the pair of Bush-Coulter, one of the strongest in our division at least. I think you got a bit of a steal with Babe Pratt, he could be a #2 on a lot of teams in this. 3rd pair of Rick Ley and Dan Boyle is ok, won't hurt you but doesn't scream 'amazing depth' either. They could be in trouble against some of the PF's in our division.

Charlie Gardiner is very solid as a starter - can't say I know anything about your backup TBH. You have a better goalie than my team does though, lol.

First unit powerplay is freightening, second unit can be stopped though. Is Boyle really a better choice than Quackenbush for the 1st unit? I think your penalty kill is among the weakest in our division.

Overall, you have surely built another contender. I'm just a little mystified with your 2nd line. I think the lack of an elite #1 on defence, and maybe some questionable support behind the Richard's could be your downfall.

Holmstrom has a role on the PP here for sure. But Parise defintiely fits better wtih Draper as a better defensive player. That line looks a lot better now I think and can be used in most defensive situations.

EDIT: Looking further into Parise, he has a shockingly good resume for a guy in the NHL for five years. A Second Team All Star, All Olympic Team 2010. I enever would have expected that much from him already.

Yup. If Parise recovers fully (crosses fingers). He'll be a second line "glue guy lite" in a few years.

Frank Boucher was a better player than Bill Cook, at least in their time in New York (though Cook's western league scoring credentials are more impressive). They scored the exact same number of points over the course of their peaks together (starting in 1926-27 and ending in 1934-35 - each scored 249 points) and this in an era when scoring favored the goalscorer. Boucher led the Rangers in scoring five times, Cook four times. Taking the assists issue into account, Boucher was pretty clearly the better offensive player overall (by just how much is debatable), and was a defensive dynamo, while nothing is known about Cook's defense. Frank Boucher was also the most dominant playoff scorer in the NHL over the course of his career.

The canon on the Bread Line seems to have been simply wrong, likely because Cook has more "spectacular" on paper scoring credentials (he led the league in goals and points a couple of times while Boucher peaked at 2nd in points - and to modern eyes an "assists title", of which Boucher had three, is worth less than a goals title, even though at that time assists were harder to come by, and therefore more valuable) and because he was the team captain. Even the New York Times hockey columnist of the day (John Kieran) considered Boucher to be the Rangers' MVP.

Ultimately, I think Frank Boucher is very similar to Bryan Trottier. Here is a comparison of Boucher vs Trottier as scorers using my preferred shorthand:

Really quite similar scoring credentials, overall (Boucher's are maybe a tick better), and this of course underrates Boucher somewhat because the era he played in was unkind to playmakers. Before anyone claims that Trottier is underrated because of Gretzky - Bryan's two best seasons in the above came in 1977-78 and 1978-79, before Wayne Gretzky came to the NHL (and before Trottier started playing lockdown defense, as well - Arbour had to coach Trottier and Potvin into being great defensive players, they were not shutdown players during their offensive primes in the late 70's), and at any rate the Vs2 distortions because of Gretzky and Lemieux don't start popping up until 1987-88, well past Trottier's prime. Both were consistently elite (though not quite ATD elite) scoring centers who centered all-time great RW goalscorers and hall of fame "glue guy" left wings. Defensively, Boucher and Trottier are also quite similar, both being dominant 2-way players and the primary defensive conscience for all-time great scoring lines. Both were outstanding postseason players, as well - Trottier collecting a Conn-Smythe in 1980 and Boucher almost singlehandedly carrying the Rangers to their first Cup in 1928.

The information I posted on Boucher's defensive game can be found here and here. It is very strong - I believe sufficient to place Boucher in the second tier of all-time great two-way centers alongside Trottier and Schmidt (below Clarke and Nighbor).

Interesting. Not saying your method is necessarily wrong, but how much higher do Trottier's numbers go if you remove all Edmonton Oilers from the comparison? That was a team of outliers, played a different style from anyone else, and was loaded with guys helping each other reach new heights. Not as big an outlier as the early 70s Bruins, but still a big one.